Multiplayer gaming not evolving?

HazardO said:
In BF, too many players or too many tickets ruins some maps. If you've ever seen the state of Zavod on a 3000 ticket 64 player server after every destructible item has been destroyed, every tree felled, and every part of the battlefield covered in shell craters, it's a complete mess and practically unplayable due to the lack of cover and inability to move a vehicle other than a heli.
Click to expand...

And usually you have someone camping in the MAA just outside base making movement in a heli infeasible :P

They should just turn off building destruction in BF4 it adds nothing to most games I've played and often seems to result in lag, server instability and weird stuff like getting stuck in the debris and/or people camping in the debris that aren't being rendered properly or can't be shot at but can shoot out, etc. being able to blow holes through walls is cool but the whole buildings coming down seems poorly implemented.

EDIT: Same with siege of Shanghai really - screw the levolution crap if they'd made the C tower actually have something of an interior with the ability to blow holes in certain walls and floors/ceilings it would do far more for gameplay than the whole building coming down in some poor scripted sequence that probably took up more dev time.
 
Last edited:
I personally prefer 32 player maps on BF these days, and even then, it can turn into a cluster F.

They need to work on the maps and team play more than the player count in my opinion. As it stands, 64 people on one map is too much for BF. The maps are too small and the objectives are clustered too closely.
 
VincentHanna said:
I don't see why 128+ players would make the experience better.

You would just have to spread the battles out even more, so you don't end up with 20 people camping a capture point.

You can always play Planetside 2 if you want more players.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing higher player count with bad level design.

To suggesting those wanting more players simply play Planetside 2, thanks.
 
I thought this thread was going to be about the horrible matchmaking systems that most MP games have today instead of the good old fashioned universal server browser that lets you choose which server you want with custom community made maps and mods if you so wish, games like these are few and far between these days.. :(
 
QlimaxUK said:
I thought this thread was going to be about the horrible matchmaking systems that most MP games have today instead of the good old fashioned universal server browser that lets you choose which server you want with custom community made maps and mods if you so wish, games like these are few and far between these days.. :(
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of forced matchmaking systems, sometimes you just want to play with your mates whatever the ability range. If a game has the option of both that's fine, but server browser is a must IMO.
 
Gimpymoo said:
I think you are confusing higher player count with bad level design.

To suggesting those wanting more players simply play Planetside 2, thanks.
Click to expand...

Not really.

128 people on current sized Battlefield 4 maps would be ridiculous because they aren't made for it.

Imagine Operation Locker or Metro with that many people! 64 is already silly on those IMO.

Therefore the only way to sort that out would be...larger maps. Nothing to do with bad level design.

I've never really fought against 63 other people and thought "This is a bit slow paced, could really do with do with double the amount of players"
 
Even in planetside 2 the sheer amount of players still inevitably leads to choke points and mass zergs. It can be fun but at the same time can be overly chaotic.

I still remember the days of infantry only 16vs16 BF2, strike at karkand, sharqi peninsula etc. really were absolutely epic, 4 squads organised and attacking and holding various points.
 
Heh. bring back gamespy!

All of this is dependent on game and map design. Thing is I could well see 128 player servers sitting empty. You design a map for 128 or more, unless it's close to being full, people won't bother joining.

Maybe I underestimate the amount of people out there now, but back when I played online, this would often be the case at non peak times in most games.

To be honest though, 4 on 4 ultimately was my favourite game type.
 
I'd love a Battlefield game with a map with 32 players on each side, but THREE factions. You could have two factions fighting together (enemy of my enemy is my friend) against the third but the 'agreement' could go south at any time or while you're keeping on team in their base the other team could be capping all the points meaning you have to withdraw to cap flags again. Make the maps 2-3 times BF4 size with around a dozen points and I'd even subscribe to that ****!
 
MissChief said:
I'd love a Battlefield game with a map with 32 players on each side, but THREE factions. You could have two factions fighting together (enemy of my enemy is my friend) against the third but the 'agreement' could go south at any time or while you're keeping on team in their base the other team could be capping all the points meaning you have to withdraw to cap flags again. Make the maps 2-3 times BF4 size with around a dozen points and I'd even subscribe to that ****!
Click to expand...

You should play Planetside 2.
 
d_brennen said:
The best multiplayer experiences I have ever had have been 5v5, 6v6 etc
Click to expand...
Twirlywoos said:
Since when does increasing player count = evolution ????
Click to expand...
Rroff said:
Problem is the network code in Frostbite engine from the beginning was designed around a really nasty system of trying to backwards reconcile events over a large time period (there is a reason why all other game engines don't try to use this technique for anything over about 150ms) and all the changes since are just band aids to try and mask the underlying issue - no amount of brute forcing it to run at a higher tickrate can entirely fix it.
Click to expand...
VincentHanna said:
I don't see why 128+ players would make the experience better.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with the above comments.

Personally I would rather play a FPS game like CSGO with voice comms, tactics & accurate netcode. (in a proper team)

I've never got into FPS games with huge teams like BF.
I don't see adding more players by breaking/limiting the netcode as evolution.
Some recent FPS games seem way too inconsistent to ever be considered for competitive play.
 
well back in the days of when world of warcraft was the game to play.... you could visit ironforge and there could be 200 players in that zone alone, same with stormwind. so player caps of 64 are not really soemthing that is an issue, I think it dependant on the genre and what makes it fun
 
I think multiplayer has evolved into more 'co-op' style games which I think is fantastic!
The Division has a nice mix of single, co-op and online play.

AS others have said, more does not equal better.
 
Ace Modder said:
well back in the days of when world of warcraft was the game to play.... you could visit ironforge and there could be 200 players in that zone alone, same with stormwind. so player caps of 64 are not really soemthing that is an issue, I think it dependant on the genre and what makes it fun
Click to expand...

"Players present" happens to be a particularly poor technical metric to use, however. Unless you're privy to the way in which, and the amount of which a particular game utilises network connectivity, it's very much an apples and oranges situation.
 
Zefan said:
"Players present" happens to be a particularly poor technical metric to use, however. Unless you're privy to the way in which, and the amount of which a particular game utilises network connectivity, it's very much an apples and oranges situation.
Click to expand...

Yeah MMOs typically run at between 1-4Hz compared to 20-60+Hz for proper FPS games and don't normally use hitscan or proper projectiles i.e. a missile in flight in an MMO will just be a graphical effect that has already missed or hit a pre-determined target based on a roll of the dice rather than real time collision detection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom